Vehicle impact dampening devices now in use can be classified as (1) conventional spring metal bumpers (2) bumpers mounted on hydraulic shock absorbers, or as (3) designs that dampen impact by crumpling car bodies into twisted masses of metal. Federal Standards specify that a bumper must dampen impact without substantial damage to a vehicle traveling five miles an hour when it hits “an immovable object” which may have advantages in parking lots, but most accidents occur at speeds far in excess of five miles an hour, so such bumpers do not give adequate protection to the vehicle or the passengers. The crumpling of a car body to absorb shock obviously defeats efforts to reduce costs of repairs and the same is true for existing hydraulic shock absorbers, but is less obvious because in order to dampen impact the absorber must “stroke” and in doing so, the bumper and front of the car must move relatively to the rest of the car. Such movement in turn, typically results in the front parts such as the grill and fenders being made of plastic in the hope that they will return to their original shape. Such plastic parts are much weaker than the metal parts they replace, so they can not dampen nearly the amount of impact that the metal parts did, which defeats the dampening afforded by crumpling of metal parts. Therefore, use of hydraulic shock absorbers can result in even more danger to the passengers rather than less. In addition, the plastic parts are less durable than the metal parts they replaced which defeats the savings intended. The air bag has reduced injury in some cases but due to its explosive nature and accidental inflations, many injuries and deaths have been caused by it, so for the net effect they afford, the air bag solution is very questionable relative to both safety and economy. Applicant believes that there is an urgent need for better means to protect drivers, passengers, and vehicles at a cost that all citizens can afford. Curtis' U.S. Pat. No. 5,106,137 is the closest reference found by applicant, which teaches use of a new special air cushion mounted with a conventional bumper with an impact-activated embodiment as described in Co. 3, lines 34–55 and a pre-charged embodiment described in Col 4, lines 35–39. The present invention teaches improvements over Curtis as follows: (1) No additional parts that add cost and weight to the vehicle, as are required by Curtis. (2) Because numerous vehicle bumpers now in use comprise vertical extensions that project outwardly and vertically from the bumper so as to mate with other bumpers of different heights, Curtis' bumper cannot absorb enough of a concentrated impact load to be useful, because a concentrated load from the vertical extension would stroke only a minute lateral portion of his air bag and therefore, dampen very little impact. (3) The Curtis air bag either requires recharging per his first embodiment, or is limited to a very short stroke equal to the depth of the airbag per his second embodiment, precluding dampening of much impact force. (4) An impact force applied to Curtis' bumper will generate an extremely high pressure in the air bag due to its very short stroke, that must be retained without rupture by means of fascia (20) and the upper and lower walls of cavity (32) which must be flexible to allow flexing of airbag (30) as required to dampen any impact force. Vans and trucks have for many years, mounted their spare wheel parallel to the back of the vehicle by means of bolting its hub to a mounting member, but such a mounting affords virtually no dampening capacity for the vehicle because any substantial force against the wheel will engage the tire sidewall and break the pneumatic seal between the tire and hub, and immediately contact the hub which delivers almost the full impact to the vehicle body.